OF  SPECIAL 


yr 

AlC4-^ 

Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor 


July  21,  1907 


John  C.  Bunneister  Printing  Co.,  166  S.  Clinton  St. ; Chicago. 


p 


REPORT  OF  SPECIAL  CHARTER  COM- 
MITTEE, JULY  21,  1907. 


edi  Y ur  • committee  has  minutely  examined  the 
^ proposed  charter,  in  all  respects  and  more  espe- 
j ciallv  in  its  possible  effects  on  labor  and  the  labor 

^ situation". 

We  have  examined  it  in  its  political  features, 
its  civil  service,  its  revenue,  its  educational,  its 
pubi  c utilities  and  general  features. 

; the  political  we  find  the  following:  The 
charter  provides  that  aldermen  shall  hold  office 
for  four  years.  In  this  regard  it  is  reactionary 
in  effect,  inasmuch  that  it  removes  the  public 
servant  farther  from  the  correcting  hand  of  the 
electorate.  Aldermen  being  elected  for  four  years 
will  have  plenty  of  time  to  consummate  any  piece 
of  rascality  that  their  owners  may  conceive  of 
being  profitable.  Any  alderman  who  is  on  the 
make  could  feather  his  nest  very  nicely  in  four 
years  of  freedom  from  interference. 

Further,  the  charter  provides  that  fifty  aider- 
men  shall  bo  elected  every  four  years  instead  of 
seventy  every  two  years,  which  will  result  in  a 
very  considerable  saving  to  the  predatory  inter- 
ests which  now  have  to  go  to  the  expense  of 
financing  the  campaigns  of  the  majority  of  seventy 
^ aldermen  every  two  years. 


3 


The  Legislature  has  usurped  the  undoubted 
right  of  the  Council  by  making  the  first  appor- 
tionment of  wards,  said  apportionment  being  a 
rank  gerrymander. 

This  charter  proposition  violates  in  its  begin- 
ning, in  its  most  essential  features,  the  most 
sacred  and  fundamental  principles  of  self-gov- 
ernment. While  it  is  put  forward  in  answer  to 
an  appeal  for  home  rule,  it  starts  right  in  to  deny 
and  destroy  the  very  thing  where  home  rule  is 
most  essentially  needed.  No  one  will  deny  that 
the  right  to  elect  the  men  who  are  to  make  the 
laws  is  one  that  should  be  guarded  with  jealous 
care,  for  as  good  laws  may  bless  so  bad  ones 
may  curse  and  destroy  a community. 

This  charter  proposition  continues  our  present 
form  of  council  for  eighteen  months,  subject, 
however,  to  the  new  law,  but  after  that  we  are 
restricted  to  fifty  or  less  and  ward  boundaries 
fixed  and  twisted  and  contorted  out  of  all  re- 
semblance to  decency  and  fairness.  One  political 
party  under  this  gerrymander,  with  a normal 
minority,  will  get  32  of  the  wards,  the  controlling 
interests  of  the  other  party  accept  the  situation 
because  it  controls  14  of  the  remaining  18  wards ; 
this  leaves  4 wards  that  the  politicians  have  rele- 
gated to  the  people. 

The  workers  are  segregated  into  large  com- 
munities having  small  proportionate  representa- 
tion, for  example,  the  17th  ward  with  an  approxi- 
mate registration  of  4,577  gave  Busse  1,880  votes, 
Dunne  1,798  votes.  The  18th  ward  with  a regis- 
tration of  12,926  gave  Busse  3,931  votes,  Dunne  . 
6,913  votes,  with  2,082  to  the  Socialist  and  scat-A 


Lcring.  This  discriminates  at  the  rate  of  nearly 
three  to  one  and  denies  to  the  workingman 
equal  political  rights.  The  17th  ward  as  proposed 
being  a so-called  silk  stocking  ward  and  the 
18th  the  workingman’s  district.  All  of  the  above 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  charter  provides  that 
wards  must  be  as  nearly  equal  in  population  as 
practicable — it  looks  like  practical  politics. 


There  can  be  no  reapportionment  until  1920. 
The  number  of  the  wards  cannot  be  increased. 
The  work  of  reappontionment  falls  on  those 
who  will  probably  be  interested  in  preserving  the 
inequities  proposed  by  the  charter. 


The  charter  is  monarchial  in  its  tendency,  in- 
asmuch as  it  gives  almost  unlimited  adminis- 
trative power  to  the  Mayor,  for  Art.  3,  Sec.  11, 
gives  the  Mayor  the  power  to  remove  any  officer 
appointed  by  him  whenever  he  is  of  the  opinion 
that  the  interests  of  the  city  demand  it.  He  has 
merely  to  give  his  reason  in  writing  to  the  City 
Council.  This  gives  to  the  Mayor  thet  power 
which  may  be  used  unscrupulously  in  the  control 
of  the  management  of  the  schools  to  give  a re- 
actionary mold  to  the  minds  of  the  future  men — 
the  school  children,  to  the  end  that  economic  in- 
vestigation shall  be  blocked,  and  that  vested  in- 
terests, no  matter  how  inequitable,  shall  always 
find  its  champions  and  supporters. 


Art.  5,  Sec.  4 of  the  Charter  seems  to  grant 
broad  powers  to  the  city,  but  expressly  limits  the 
power  of  the  city  as  to  public  utilities,  taxation 
and  to  the  provision  pertaining  to  the  Board  of 
Education,  which  gives  the  Mayor  power  of  ap- 


pointing  and  removing,  and  thereby  gives  him*1 
absolute  control  of  the  schools. 


I 

t i n , * 


The  promise  of  broad  power  to  the  city  looks 
small  indeed  when  we  compare  it  with  Art.  22, 
Sec.  4,  which  reads  as  follows:  “Nothing  in  this 
act  or  any  section  thereof  contained  shall  be  con- 
strued as  affecting,  limiting  or  impairing  the 
right  of  the  Legislature  to  alter,  amend,  annul 
or  repeal  any  or  all  of  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  enacted  in 
conformity  to  the  constitution  of  the  State.”  This 
will  effectually  prevent  any  radical  action  being 
taken,  as  the  result  of  a political  revolution 
which  may  give  to  the  people  control  of  the  city 
government  even  under  the  present  gerrymander. 

The  Legislature  could  annul  any  act  of  the 
city  by  altering  the  provisions  of  the  charter. 

The  charter  is  also  subject  to  all  existing  gen- 
eral laws,  also  all  general  laws  to  be  made  in  the 
future. 

Art.  5,  Sec.  2,  This  subjects  Chicago  to  irksome 
puritanical  laws  which  may  be  tolerable  in  rural 
communities,  but  which  would  infringe  upon 
what  the  population  of  a metropolis  would  call 
“personal  liberty.”  A broad  promise  of  home 
rule  is  given,  but  it  is  so  hedged  in  by  conditions 
and  provisos  that  the  already  vague  promise  be- 
comes entirely  inoperative. 

Sec.  5,  Art.  28,  takes  away  the  people’s  rights 
to  elect  the  City  Clerk — more  power  to  the  Mayor. 

The  initiative  lies  entirely  with  the  Council.  If 
the  Council  does  not  see  fit  to  initiate  a measure, 
no  matter  how  desirable,  under  Art.  5,  Sec.  4, 


6 


n 

will  be  impossible  to  procure  the  reform  or  relief 
sought. 

The  only  instance  in  which  the  initiative  is 
given  is  when  a measure  has  been  rejected.  The 
people  may  with  a 15  per  cent  petition  have  said 
measure  re-submitted  after  two  years.  The 
people  are  utterly  deprived  of  the  initiative  of 
first  instance. 

Chapter  3 re-establishes  an  old  and  obnoxious 
primary  law  which  leaves  the  selection  of  candi- 
dates in  the  hands  of  the  bosses. 

CIVIL  SERVICE. 

The  Civil  Service  section  of  the  charter  is  a 
wordy  abrogation  of  the  Civil  Service  principle. 
The  heads  of  departments  may,  without  hearing, 
remove  any  employe  any  time  within  an  un- 
stated probationary  period.  Employes  who  have 
passed  the  probationary  period  may  be  discharged 
by  the  head  of  the  department,  filing  reasons 
therefor  with  the  Civil  Service  Commission.  The 
employe  is  not  accorded  a hearing  and  can  only 
answer  the  charges  in  writing. 

Laborers  are  not  accorded  even  this  modicum 
of  protection,  it  being  expressly  provided  that 
“this  does  not  apply  to  laborers.”  The  framers 
of  the  charter  evidently  believe  that  mere  labor- 
ers had  no  rights  worth  considering,  anyhow. 

EDUCATION. 

In  the  management  of  the  schools,  Art.  19, 
Sec.  1,  prohibits  interference  by  the  Council,  and 
in  the  next  section  the  Mayor  is  given  absolute 


power  in.  appointing  and  removing  any  member^ 
of  the  school  board.  The  Mayor  can  remove  any 
member  by  merely  stating  his  reasons,  good  or 
bad.  *The  member  selected  for  decapitation  may 
then  appear'  before  the  Mayor  for  hearing.  The 
Mayor  is  hereby  made  creator,  prosecutor,  judge, 
jury  and  executioner. 

Art.  19,  Sec.  9,  provides  that  no  officer  can 
suffer  a reduction  in  pay  unless  all  teachers  are 
also  reduced  in  pay,  but  teachers  may  be  reduced 
in  pay  without  the  pay  of  the  officials  being  re- 
duced. 

Art.  19,  Sec.  11,  provides  that  the  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  employe  of  the  Board  of 
Education  and  that  no  employe  can  be  removed 
except  for  cause,  then  the  following  significant 
exception  occurs : 

“Teachers  shall  for  this  purpose  not  be  held 
to  be  employes.”  This  is  certainly  an  indefensible 
discrimination  against  the  teachers.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  framers  of  the  charter  did  not 
approve  of  the  teachers  allying  themselves  with 
the  general  labor  movement,  and  this  is  evi- 
dently their  method  of  making  their  disapproval 
effective. 

Although  Sec.  30  provides  that  charges  and  a 
hearing  before  the  Board  of  Education  are  pre- 
liminary to  the  discharge  of  a teacher,  any  cause 
that  the  Board  may  call  good  is  sufficient  to  sus- 
tain the  discharge. 

Sec.  26  gives  to  the  Board  of  Education  all 
powers  not  defined  in  the  charter.  This  will  make 
it  easy  for  a hostile  administration  to  drive  out 


8 


I 

TV; 


7VU  their  employ  any  members  of  labor  unions  if 
this  charter  be  adopted. 

Children  and  teachers  are  guaranteed  abso- 
lutely nothing  under  the  charter. 

The  charter  seeks,  to  make  the  public  schools 
a cog  in  the  capitalistic  machine,  so  that  the 
children  may  reach  manhood’s  estate,  content  in 
a condition  of  abject  servitude. 


TAXATION. 

On  the  subject  of  taxation,  your  committee  is 
of  the  opinion  that  there  is  crying  need  of  re- 
vision of  the  revenue  laws  of  Chicago,  the  old 
system  being  very  wasteful.  It  is  estimated  that 
the  proposed  system  would  result  in  a saving  of 
about  $60,000  a year,  and  this  is  about  the  only 
good  thing  in  the  charter,  and  it  is  a mere  baga- 
telle, for  the  whole  system  of  taxation  is  funda- 
mentally wrong.  Sixty  thousand  dollars  is  a 
small  matter  when  we  take  into  consideration  the 
fact  that  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars’  worth 
of  property  in  this  city  escape  its  just  proportion 
of  taxation.  The  charter  does  not  propose  any 
remedy  for  the  situation,  the  principle  and  appli- 
cation will  be  the  same  as  of  old,  only  more  so. 

Under  the  old  system,  as  well  as  under  the  pro- 
posed new,  the  workingman,  the  renter,  the  single 
home  owner,  the  small  business  man,  all  those 
who  have  no  means  of  shifting  their  taxes,  must, 
and  do,  pay  all  taxes,  and  any  increase  in  taxation 
must  be  borne  by  those  least  able  to  bear  it.  It  is 
claimed  by  the  advocates  of  the  new  charter  that 
Chicago  must  have  more  money  with  which  to 
finance  this  great  and  growing  city,  and  in  the 


next  breath  they  try  to  show  that  the  increase 
will  be  infinitesimal.  It  is  certain  that  a large 
amount  will  be  raised  somewhere  and  somehow. 
Let  us  see  how  and  where.  The  tax  levy  for  city 
and  country  must  not  exceed  5 per  cent  of  the 
assessed  valuation,  exclusive  of  interest  and  the 
bonded  indebtedness  sinking  fund,  which,  is  in 
addition  to  and  above  the  five  per  cent  referred 
to.  It  is  provided  that  the  interest  on  bonded 
indebtedness  and  the  sinking  fund  must  be  raised 
by  direct  taxation.  (Sec.  13,  Art.  5.)  Twenty 
years  is  the  constitutional  time  for  a debt  to  run. 

It  was  estimated  that  the  income  from  direct 
taxes  in  1906  would  be  more  than  $7,000,000,  the 
taxable  property  at  one-fifth  valuation  being 
placed  at  $408,000,000,  the  full  value  being  $2,- 
040,000,000,  five  per  cent  of  which  would  repre- 
sent the  possible  bonded  indebtedness  of  the  city. 
At  4 per  cent  the  interest  would  amount  to  $4,- 
100,000 — the  sinking  fund  $5,100,000  more  per 
year. 

Interest  and  sinking  fund  in  1906  amounted  to 
$2,288,368,  the  difference  between  the  old  and 
the  proposed  obligation  being  nearly  $7,000,000. 
It  would  appear  from  this  that  Mr.  F.  L.  Shep- 
pard’s charge  that  taxes  would  be  from  25  to  40 
per  cent  higher  is  well  founded  and  very,  con- 
servative. 

If  taxes  had  been  fairly  spread  and  ‘collected 
under  the  present  system  the  amount  would  have 
been  double  that  really  raised.  The  system  will 
be  substantially  the  same  under  the  new  charter. 
We  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  people 
who  have  always  been  unfair  will  suddenly  be- 


^ome  fair  if  the  new  charter  were  adopted.  There- 
fore, the  class  who  now  bear  the  whole  burden 
would  have  to  bear  the  added  burden,  and  it  is 
safe  to  predict  that  the  adoption  of  the  charter 
would  result  in  a doubling  of  taxes  to  those  who 
have  no  means  of  dodging  or  shifting  the  same. 

The  fact  that  a certain  class  of  large  property- 
holders  have  the  means  of  successfully  shifting 
or  dodging  their  just  proportion  of  taxes,  would 
probably  account  for  their  advocacy  of  the  char- 
ter. The  attorney  of  the  real  estate  board  con- 
demns the  charter  because  of  the  certain  increase 
in  taxation,  but  on  the  whole  he  considers  the 
charter  acceptable. 

The  owner  can  pass  the  increased  tax  along  to 
the  renter  and  charge  interest  on  the  transaction. 

The  special  assessment  evil  is  retained  in  its 
entirety.  Local  improvement  cost  is  in  addition 
to  all  of  the  liabilities  before  mentioned. 

Park  boards  may  be  allowed  to  spread  a spe- 
cial tax  for  the  support  of  museums,  (Art.  18, 
Sec.  18). 

Art.  12,  Sec.  3,  provides  that  a tax  may  be 
placed  on  any  trade  or  business  in  the  city.  A 
hostile  city  council  may,  in  lime  of  trouble,  lay 
a tax  upon  the  desired  kind  of  workman  or  art- 
isan, and. before  a court  could  pass  on  the  matter, 
the  object  of  their  interests  would  be  accom- 
plished. 

Mr.  Maclay  Hoyne,  in  an  opinion  given  to  the 
City  Council  on  December  10,  1904,  says  that  the 
Legislature  has  power  to  give  to  Chicago  the 
right  to  taxe  any  trade,  profession  or  occupation 
carried  on  in  Chicago.  This  power  is  given 
under  the  new  charter. 


“And  may  the  Lord  have  mercy  on  the  disv* 
possessed  who  produce  everything  and  own  noth- 
ing but  the  privilege*  to  bear  the  whole  burden 
of  society.” 

PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

The  public  utility  section  (Art.  16)  appears  on 
the  face  of  it  to  make  municipal  ownership  and 
operation  possible.  The  city  may  issue  bonds, 
pledging  the  faith  of  the  city  (Sec.  io)  for  the 
purpose  of  acquiring  public  utilities,  if  the  propo- 
sition to  issue  bonds  is  approved  by  two-thirds 
of  the  people  voting  thereon. 

Municipal  ownership  then  in  this  direction  and 
by  the  above  mentioned  means  is  made  impos- 
sible. 

Art.  1 6,  Sec.  12,  allows  the  city  to  issue  interest- 
bearing  certificates  payable  from  the  income  of 
the  property  to  be  acquired,  this  to  be  subject  to 
a majority  vote.  Sec.  8,  Should  property  be  ac- 
quired in  either  case  as  outlined  above,  the  city 
could  not  operate  these  utilities  until  the  question 
of  such  operation  had  been  passed  upon  favor- 
ably by  the  people  in  a referendum  vote.  If  the 
matter  of  operation  be  not  passed  by  the  Council 
and  submitted  by  the  Council,  the  people  arc  help- 
less to  raise  the  question  because  the  initiative 
is  not  provided  for  among  the  people  themselves. 

The  city  has  the  power  to  lease  its  public  utili- 
ties for  a period  not  to  exceed  twenty  years,  the 
lessee  to  operate  the  property;  therefore,  if  the 
Council  did  not  submit  the  question  of  operation 
to  the  people  (and  it  is  not  compelled  to),  the 


property  would  then  necessarily  have  to  be  leased 
to  some  profit  monger. 

Art.  1 6,  Sec.  2,  reads  in  part,  “No  person  or 
corporation  shall  have  the  right  to  locate,  con- 
struct, maintain  or  operate  any  public  utility  in, 
over,  under,  upon  or  along  the  streets,  alleys  or 
other  public  places  of  the  City  of  Chicago  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  corporate  authorities  of 
said  city,  which  consent  MAY  be  granted  for  a 
period  not  longer  than  twenty  years.  This 
amounts  to  the  right  to  give  a perpetual  fran- 
chise to  anyone  who  has  the  price;  for  Art.  22, 
Sec.  2,  reads,  “The  words  ‘shall  have  power’  or 
MAY,  as  used  in  this  charter,  SHALL  NOT  BE 
CONSTRUED  AS  MANDATORY.” 

Therefore,  a grant  can  be  given  for  any  time 
if  the  people  of  this  city  who  are  interested  in 
preserving  the  liberties  of  posterity  cannot  bear 
the  expense  of  circulating  a referendum  petition. 
In  this  case  the  question  is  only  submitted  to 
the  people  as  a result  of  a petition,  also  in  this 
particular  case  the  Council  does  not  have  to  sub- 
mit the  question  except  as  noted. 

Although  a referendum  petition  requires  only 
ten  per  cent  of  the  registered  voters,  yet  the 
circulating  of  one  will  be  very  costly,  because 
Art.  2,  Chapter  2,  Sec.  9,  provides  that  every 
signature  must  be  verified  by  a statement  under 
oath  by  an  adult  citizen,  that  he  believes  the 
signer  to  be  a voter,  or  that  the  signatures  cannot 
be  obtained  by  children,  neither  can  blanks  be 
left  in  public  places  to  be  filled,  and  the  necessary 
great  expense  must  be  borne  by  public-spirited 

M 13 


citizens,  the  charter  making  no  provisions  fo 
the  expense  of  circulating  the  petitions. 

REMARKS. 

All  the  predatory,  tax  dodging,  labor  baiting 
interests  in  Chicago  are  unequivocally  in  favor 
of  the  adoption  of  this  charter — in  fact,  the  in- 
sistent demand  for  the  charter  has  been  made 
by  this  class,  during  the  past  ten  years — this  class 
who  have  most  loudly  demanded  reform  have 
the  most  to  fear  from  the  inauguration  of  any 
real  reform.  They  constitute  the  class  who  fear 
the  rule  by  the  whole  people.  They  are  the  class 
who  in  this  charter  seek  to  curb  the  power  of  the 
electorate. 

In  this  connection  we  may  ask,  “What  right 
have  the  people  to  expect  that  if  the  charter  is 
adopted,  that  the  promises  of  better  government 
will  bring  results  any  sooner  or  surer  than  the 
promises  made  in  reference  to  improved  street- 
car service?”  It  is  quite  apparent  that  promises 
have  not  been  kept  in  the  past,  and  those  that 
have  betrayed  the  people  in  the  past  are  reason- 
ably certain  to  betray  them  in  the  future,  if  given 
the  opportunity. 

The  charter  is  unnecessary.  Chicago  can  get 
what  relief  it  wants  from  the  Legislature  under 
the  “Charter  amendement  to  the  Constitution,” 
which  permits  the  Legislature  to  give  to  Chicago 
anything  it  wants  without  forcing  on  Chicago  a 
lot  of  onerous  and  oppressive  laws  it  does  not 
want,  e.  g.,  Chicago  could  obtain  full  control  of 
its  own  taxation  with  the  right  to  apply  vary- 


I r 


ing  rates  under  this  to  different  classes  of  prop- 
erty; industry  could  be  re-leased  and  privilege 
taxed  according  to  the  value  of  the  privilege. 


The  charter  is  a weaker  and  poorer  instru- 
ment than  that  which  the  Charter  Convention 
framed.  All  real  reform  and  improvement  seems 
to  be  purposely  excluded.  There  is  no  mention 
of  the  initiative,  which  we  have  had  in  a way ; 
no  mention  of  the  re-call  or  the  imperative  man- 
date which  progressive  states  are  adopting;  noth- 
ing that  will  give  the  people  better  control  of 
their  own  affairs;  nothing  in  the  interest  of 
democratic  government;  nothing  to  preserve  the 
liberties  of  the  people  against  the  encroachments 
of  concentrated  wealth  and  plutocratic  greed. 

The  charter  is  but  a re-hash  of  the  old,  incon- 
sistent, absurd  and  contradictory  laws  now  on 
the  books ; it  is  an  insidious  attempt  to  dress 
Chicago  in  a corporation  straight-jacket  and  to 
bind  labor  to  the  chariot  wheel  of  a power-mad 
plutocracy. 


15 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 


Your  Committee  is  therefore  of  the  opinion 
that  the  proposed  charter  is  against  the  best  in- 
terests of  Chicago  in  general,  and  that  its  pro- 
visions are  inimical  to  the  interests  of  labor  in 
particular. 

Therefore  your  Committee  recommends  that 
this  body  conduct  among  its  constituent  unions 
a campaign  against  the  acceptance  of  the  prof- 
fered charter,  by  providing  speakers,  literature, 
etc.,  to  the  end  that  no  union  man  may  be  igno- 
rant of  his  interest  when  the  question  is  decided 
oh  September  17. 


Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed) 

J.  A.  Jarvis,  Chairman, 
A.  Gilchrist, 

F.  G.  Hopp,  Secretary, 
A.  G.  Mendell, 

Chas.  M.  Rau, 


Special  Charter  Committee  of  Chicago  Fed- 
eratiom  of  Labor. 

Don’t  fail  to  go  to  the  polls  and  vote  NO 
on  the  New  Charter  on  Election  Day,  Tues- 
day, September  17,  1907. 


16 


